Reply to APOS sheep statement

[ksteed17]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

4/5 on both sides, as I call it double broomed.... You won't have to change anything, JMO

Just so I understand. Both horns have to be broomed to a minimum of 4/5? What if both sides are broomed one side is shorter than 4/5 and the other is longer than 4/5 good to go? I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing?

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by ksteed17

Just so I understand. Both horns have to be broomed to a minimum of 4/5? What if both sides are broomed one side is shorter than 4/5 and the other is longer than 4/5 good to go? I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing?

Both sides, would need to meet 4/5th's to be legal.

[ksteed17]

A letter from WSFAB stating their official position unless bdub thinks this is just APOS telling them what to do again...http://www.wsfab.org/pdfs/esrd9f.pdf

[bdub]

Originally Posted by ksteed17

A letter from WSFAB stating their official position unless bdub thinks this is just APOS telling them what to do again...http://www.wsfab.org/pdfs/esrd9f.pdf

I did find this from the WSF statement encouraging ksteed.

"The availability of general tags for bighorn sheep hunting is something that lives deep in the souls and traditions of Alberta’s hunting population and is something that cannot be given up lightly, unless a clear and large threat to our sheep population is imminent."

However I am not surprised by their "stand pat" statement and said as much earlier.

How can the groups like WSF/APOS say on one hand that we need to harvest older rams and then continue to support 4/5 curl. APOS was the first to blink and chuck everyone under the bus, the WSF is not wanting to hurt any feelings so they are hiding behind the "we need more research" card. We can research for the next 10 years yet the evidence and research is staring everyone in the face, they just don't like what they see because why? Because everyone will have to give up some harvest success for a few years.

[huntwat]

One thing that scares me is WSFA is sending a letter to the politicians/gov't suggesting to leave things as is. This gov't will take that as a challenge and be very determined to make some sort of change now. Gov't doing nothing makes it look like, well, their doing nothing. Mark my words, they will make a change.
And, it seems, a change that will pizz off Albertans.

[alder]

Originally Posted by huntwat

One thing that scares me is WSFA is sending a letter to the politicians/gov't suggesting to leave things as is. This gov't will take that as a challenge and be very determined to make some sort of change now. Gov't doing nothing makes it look like, well, their doing nothing. Mark my words, they will make a change.
And, it seems, a change that will pizz off Albertans.

Agreed. Without definitive arguments to counter the proposal and just say, "it's not true" is not good enough. Does their rebuttal truly lack any fact-based or refuting evidence to the claims laid out by the full curl proposal? I have not read it.

[Lr1000]

Originally Posted by huntwat

One thing that scares me is WSFA is sending a letter to the politicians/gov't suggesting to leave things as is. This gov't will take that as a challenge and be very determined to make some sort of change now. Gov't doing nothing makes it look like, well, their doing nothing. Mark my words, they will make a change.
And, it seems, a change that will pizz off Albertans.

You do know this is not the first time this "change" has been fought off right. The government tried doing it in 2011. Letters like these are exactly what the government need to receive and I suggest people start writing their own letters and start mailing them.

[Lr1000]

Originally Posted by alder

Agreed. Without definitive arguments to counter the proposal and just say, "it's not true" is not good enough. Does their rebuttal truly lack any fact-based or refuting evidence to the claims laid out by the full curl proposal? I have not read it.

There are many bios that have stepped forward saying the genetic harm theory is a load of *****. If anything the government would like to see 5% mature Rams on the mountains after the season. Now we are at roughly 3% I don't include Cadomin because it skews everything with its high% on the mine site. So they would like another ~110 mature Rams left going into the rut. NOW this is based on aerial servays that are only 50% accurate and I'm sure they are low balling the numbers.

Our harvest rates have been very stable. From what I'm hearing ~150 sheep killed this year. That is up from last year where people where freaking out it was low. No need for change in my mind.

[huntwat]

Originally Posted by Lr1000

You do know this is not the first time this "change" has been fought off right. The government tried doing it in 2011. Letters like these are exactly what the government need to receive and I suggest people start writing their own letters and start mailing them.

I don`t know if you`re aware, but we have a different gov`t than 2011.
I suggest people should resend their letters that should have been written months ago.

[alder]

Originally Posted by huntwat

we have a different gov`t than 2011..

This is exactly the point.

[Lr1000]

That's right. There is a new government, so challenge them to make a real change where our wildlife is concerned and pick the ball up that our last government dropped with burns and predator control. Restricting hunting is quick fix that won't last. Also they don't mind screwing over corporate Alberta, so start slashing outfitter allocations as they are another part of the problem.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by Lr1000

There are many bios that have stepped forward saying the genetic harm theory is a load of *****. If anything the government would like to see 5% mature Rams on the mountains after the season. Now we are at roughly 3% I don't include Cadomin because it skews everything with its high% on the mine site. So they would like another ~110 mature Rams left going into the rut. NOW this is based on aerial servays that are only 50% accurate and I'm sure they are low balling the numbers.

Our harvest rates have been very stable. From what I'm hearing ~150 sheep killed this year. That is up from last year where people where freaking out it was low. No need for change in my mind.

You should do a little more digging into the science behind aerial surveys Scott. They know they are not going to see each and every sheep. That is a given, it is impossible to see every sheep. The numbers to look at are the percentages they see in the surveys. The 3% number is the percentage based on sheep spotted. They survey the parks and the percentage of trophy rams is much higher. 10 plus percent. Why is that? Do the 4/5 rams outside of the parks suddenly disappear into the bush during the surveys. This whole aerial surveys not being accurate is just another poor argument that is false. The reason the percentage of trophy rams spotted out of the total sheep population is because they aren't there to count. They are at the taxidermist shop. If guys spent as much time looking at the research instead of trying to make up BS to disprove it, we would be much better off.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by alder

Agreed. Without definitive arguments to counter the proposal and just say, "it's not true" is not good enough. Does their rebuttal truly lack any fact-based or refuting evidence to the claims laid out by the full curl proposal? I have not read it.

There is tons of research and evidence out there that points to the need for change. There is lots of smoke a mirrors going on by the folks who would like to see no change. Unfortunately for the sheep, people are selfish greedy bastards by nature.

[bdub]

At current rates of harvest south of the Brazeau it is estimated that more than 90 percent of the annual recruitment potential (i.e.3-4 legal rams/100 sheep) is being harvested and in some SMAs, that number is estimated to be greater than the annual recruitment which results in a steady decline of trophy rams. The exception is SMA 1 where the initiation of the full curl regulation has allowed sufficient escapement that has resulted in the percent of rams 4/5 curl or larger increasing to > 10 percent of the total population estimate (Fig.78). Based on this coarse estimate of the number of legal rams that were present, the former provincial mean harvest goal of 50 percent (not to exceed 70%) (Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division 1993) has likely been significantly exceeded in many areas of the province. Since the 1993 management plan, it has been recognized that the 50% goal of ram harvested out of what’s available is not sustainable. The absence of many very large trophies being registered on an annual basis in Alberta is indicative of heavy harvests on available rams (Festa-Bianchet et al. 2014). The age and size of rams killed by non-residents who have the added advantage of hunting with an experienced guide, were no different that of residents- further testament to a lack of larger trophy rams.

[huntwat]

Originally Posted by huntwat

One thing that scares me is WSFA is sending a letter to the politicians/gov't suggesting to leave things as is. This gov't will take that as a challenge and be very determined to make some sort of change now. Gov't doing nothing makes it look like, well, their doing nothing. Mark my words, they will make a change.
And, it seems, a change that will pizz off Albertans.

I guess they're making a change???

[GFY]

Originally Posted by huntwat

I guess they're making a change???

Northern government... srd is the ones trying g to change things. Send your letters to stop this garbage. If this gets past I know it will get challenged in court as science has to be concrete. Not they garbage science srd has been using for years.

[huntwat]

Originally Posted by GFY

Northern government... srd is the ones trying g to change things. Send your letters to stop this garbage. If this gets past I know it will get challenged in court as science has to be concrete. Not they garbage science srd has been using for years.

Northern government??
SRD is now AEP, is the government. Minister is Shannon Phillips.

[bdub]

I was just looking back through an old thread for past links. Does anyone on the WSF board have the links to the research that used to be posted on the website. Thanks